Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 57383 

using email attachments, File Transfer 

Protocol (FTP), or other online file 

sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, 

OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic 

submissions must be transmitted 

directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the 

email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as 

described above, should include clear 

CBI markings and note the docket ID. If 

assistance is needed with submitting 

large electronic files that exceed the file 

size limit for email attachments, and if 

you do not have your own file sharing 

service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov 

to request a file transfer link. If sending 

CBI information through the postal 

service, please send it to the following 

address: OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. 

Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0430. The 

mailed CBI material should be double 

wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI 

markings should not show through the 

outer envelope. 

Penny Lassiter, 

Director, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18117 Filed 8–22–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 14–58, 09–197, 16– 

271; RM 11868; FCC 23–60; FR ID 164476] 

Connect America Fund: A National 

Broadband Plan for Our Future HighCost Universal Service Support; ETC 

Annual Reports and Certifications; 

Telecommunications Carriers Eligible 

To Receive Universal Service Support; 

Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan; 

Expanding Broadband Service 

Through the ACAM Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) takes a longer term view 

and seeks to build a record to help the 

Commission explore methods for 

modifying the Universal Service Fund 

(USF) high-cost program to promote 

affordable and available broadband 

services in the years to come. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

October 23, 2023, and reply comments 

are due on or before November 21, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 

14–58, 09–197 and 16–271, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

Æ Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Æ Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

Æ Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788, 2788–89 (OS 

2020). 

Interested parties may file comments 

and reply comments on or before the 

dates indicated in this document. 

Comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 

Comments and reply comments 

exceeding ten pages must include a 

short and concise summary of the 

substantive arguments raised in the 

pleading. Comments and reply 

comments must also comply with § 1.49 

and all other applicable sections of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission 

directs all interested parties to include 

the name of the filing party and the date 

of the filing on each page of their 

comments and reply comments. All 

parties are encouraged to utilize a table 

of contents, regardless of the length of 

their submission. The Commission also 

strongly encourages parties to track the 

organization set forth in the Notice of 

Inquiry (NOI) or the concurrently 

adopted Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) in order to facilitate its internal 

review process. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, please contact, 

Jesse Jachman, Telecommunications 

Access Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, at Jesse.Jachman@

fcc.gov or Theodore Burmeister, Special 

Counsel, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, at Theodore.Burmeister@fcc.gov 

or 202–418–7400. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s NOI in 

WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 14–58, 09–197, 

16–271; RM 11868, adopted on July 23, 

2023 and released on July 24, 2023. Due 

to the COVID–19 pandemic, the 

Commission’s headquarters will be 

closed to the general public until further 

notice. The full text of this document is 

available at the following internet 

address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/ 

fcc-adopts-plan-bring-reliablebroadband-rural-communities. 

Ex Parte Presentations—Permit-ButDisclose. The proceedings this NOI and 

concurrently adopted NPRM initiate 

shall be treated as ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceedings in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within two business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). 

In light of the Commission’s trust 

relationship with Tribal Nations and its 

commitment to engage in governmentto-government consultation with them, 

it finds the public interest requires a 

limited modification of the ex parte 

rules in these proceedings. Tribal 

Nations, like other interested parties, 

should file comments, reply comments, 

and ex parte presentations in the record 

to put facts and arguments before the 

Commission in a manner such that they 

may be relied upon in the decisionmaking process consistent with the 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act. However, at the option 

of the Tribe, ex parte presentations 

made during consultations by elected 

and appointed leaders and duly 

appointed representatives of federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska 

Native Villages to Commission decision 

makers shall be exempt from disclosure 

in permit-but-disclose proceedings and 

exempt from the prohibitions during the 

Sunshine Agenda period. To be clear, 

while the Commission recognizes 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
57384 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

consultation is critically important, it 

emphasizes that they will rely in its 

decision-making only on those 

presentations that are placed in the 

public record for these proceedings. 

Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in these proceedings should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

I. Introduction 

1. With the NOI, the Commission 

takes significant next steps in achieving 

its goal of ensuring all consumers, even 

those living in the costliest areas in the 

nation, have access to affordable and 

reliable broadband service so that they 

can work, learn, engage, and obtain 

essential services no matter where they 

live. The Commission also focuses on 

the future and seeks comment on how 

to reform its high-cost programs so that 

it can continue to efficiently promote 

broadband deployment and 

meaningfully support networks long 

term in the face of a significantly 

changing broadband landscape. 

II. Notice of Inquiry 

2. The NOI seeks to build a record to 

help the Commission explore methods 

to ensure universally affordable and 

available fixed broadband services into 

the future, in light of section 254(c)(1)’s 

definition of universal service as an 

‘‘evolving level of . . . service, taking 

into account advances in 

telecommunications and information 

technologies and services.’’ The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

and how it should modify its USF highcost support program considering the 

anticipated deployment in most highcost areas of robust, scalable, nextgeneration broadband networks offering 

a minimum of 100/20 Mbps service 

made possible through Commission 

programs, programs created by the 

Infrastructure Act, and other state and 

Federal subsidy programs. In the past, 

the high-cost support program largely 

sought to incrementally upgrade 

deployed broadband network speeds in 

high-cost areas. In areas where robust 

scalable networks such as fiber are 

deployed, however, future speed 

upgrades may be relatively low cost. 

The Commission’s traditional approach, 

therefore, may no longer be well-suited 

to a changed broadband landscape. In 

the Future of USF Report, the 

Commission stated in such landscape, it 

‘‘could consider the creation of a 

process to support operating costs that 

are not recoverable from revenues 

earned when prices are set at just, 

reasonable, and affordable levels and 

from other sources of income, e.g., 

governmental grants.’’ This NOI 

explores several options for how this 

could be accomplished, including 

through cost modeling, business case 

analysis, and competitive mechanisms. 

In addition, given that broadband 

adoption rates in rural areas still lag 

considerably behind those in urban 

areas, the Commission explores whether 

the high-cost program’s focus should be 

redirected towards a goal of universal 

broadband adoption and affordability. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

these approaches and invites comment 

on other approaches for how best to 

further the Commission’s universal 

service goals. 

3. The Commission’s focus since the 

USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 

73830, November 29, 2011, has been on 

supporting the deployment of new, 

robust networks and their associated 

operational costs for a limited term. 

However, providers in high-cost areas 

that already operate such fully deployed 

networks might not have a business case 

for continuing to operate those networks 

and provide services absent ongoing 

programmatic support that will augment 

existing revenues. Similarly, providers 

that receive support under programs 

such as the Broadband, Equity, Access, 

and Deployment Program (BEAD) that 

are designed to kick-start network 

deployment without providing support 

for sustained operations may face 

similar circumstances. Depending on 

the scope of this problem, lack of 

funding could threaten the 

sustainability of these full-service 

networks in high-cost areas. 

Accordingly, with the NOI, the 

Commission will assess the scope of this 

problem and explore whether it should 

adopt a mechanism or process to 

address, including soliciting 

information about the best methods for 

determining the support needed by 

carriers to efficiently maintain these 

full-service networks. The Commission 

seeks comment on appropriate methods 

of measuring and evaluating the future 

support needs of carriers with fullservice networks, particularly where 

providers have received significant 

upfront Federal and/or state funding. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether differences in how providers 

were previously subsidized should be 

considered to avoid paying for the same 

costs twice, and if so, how. 

4. The Commission expects this effort 

will require, at a minimum, determining 

which networks should be considered 

full service and thus, potentially eligible 

for sustainability support, and which 

full-service networks should be deemed 

ineligible because their operations are 

economically viable independent of 

such support. Further, to assess 

economic viability of continued 

operations, the Commission will need to 

determine capital costs (including the 

cost of debt and equity), operating costs, 

and the estimated revenues from 

network over time, which in turn 

requires estimates of penetration rates. 

In estimating expected costs and 

revenues, the Commission should 

consider any current or expected 

support and may need to consider 

expected inflation rates. In developing a 

methodology for determining the need 

for ongoing support for operating 

expenses, the Commission must also 

consider how often to recalculate the 

need for support and how it can ensure 

that other past, current, and future 

support are properly considered. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

approach and these considerations 

against the backdrop of the universal 

service goals adopted in the Future of 

USF Report. 

5. Within its high-cost programs, the 

Commission has measured successful 

deployment based on meeting and 

sustaining certain public interest 

obligations, including specific service 

speeds and latency. The Commission 

expects a support program designed to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 57385 

sustain operations would meet 

consumers’ service and pricing needs. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

what those needs should be. How 

should the Commission define a fullservice network, meaning a network 

potentially eligible for sustainability 

support? Should the Commission factor 

in network performance standards, if 

any, that the provider was required to 

meet pursuant to the terms and 

conditions of other Federal or state 

funding, and if so, how? Are there other 

requirements that the Commission 

should adopt as part of its definition of 

a full-service network? 

6. In addition, to what extent must a 

full-service network deploy service to 

residential and business locations 

within an area? Does the Commission 

need to factor in businesses that would 

take mass market service versus ones 

expected to subscribe to an enterprise 

service? For example, should the 

Commission require, as a prerequisite to 

any funding, that the network can turn 

on service in a set number of days, e.g., 

7–10 days, to each broadband 

serviceable location identified in the 

Fabric, which serves as the foundation 

for availability data in the National 

Broadband Map? Should the 

Commission factor in the deployment 

obligations under other Federal or state 

programs, and if so, how? Should the 

Commission require a provider claiming 

to operate a full-service network to 

show that it can extend service to any 

new locations within a defined period? 

What kinds of information would the 

Commission ask such providers to 

submit to make these showings? 

7. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the definition of a 

full-service network should differ for 

areas outside the contiguous United 

States or for Tribal lands, and if so, 

how? How should the Commission 

define Tribal lands when considering 

the definition of a full-service network? 

What unique characteristics of such 

areas should the Commission consider? 

Should the Commission evaluate 

whether, and if so, to what extent, those 

factors impact the carrier through 

individualized reporting, or should the 

Commission presume that these factors 

generally exist for all carriers serving 

these areas? For example, the 

Commission has permitted carriers to 

use Alaska Plan support to maintain 

service to existing locations without 

upgrade if they can demonstrate that 

they were not able to deploy additional 

service or upgrade their facilities 

(usually due to limited access to middle 

mile facilities). Should the Commission 

define a full-service network in Alaska 

or other remote and isolated areas with 

reference to existing service in those 

areas? Should there be some minimum 

deployment requirement or public 

interest standards? 

8. The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it can or should leverage its 

existing cost models, or develop a new 

model, to estimate the monthly costs 

necessary to sustain a full-service 

network. If so, what would be the key 

assumptions about the design of the 

network and network engineering? For 

example, the Connect America Cost 

Model (CAM) assumes a green-field, 

internet protocol (IP)-based fiber-to-thepremises network capable of providing 

both voice-grade access and broadband 

services. The Commission estimates the 

terminal value of the network at the end 

of a five-year term determined by the 

book value of the assets. Should the 

Commission use the same assumptions, 

standards, and attributes when referring 

to a full-service efficient network? What 

would be the appropriate topology of 

this network? What other assumptions, 

standards, and attributes should the 

Commission use? For example, what is 

the appropriate geographic unit for 

evaluating costs and revenue, e.g., 

census blocks or individual locations? 

9. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how it addresses costs in 

areas in which locations are served by 

multiple carriers, but not all locations 

are served by all carriers. For example, 

does the Commission need to 

disaggregate the costs of serving such 

areas and if so how should it do so? Are 

there common costs for all locations for 

a carrier serving an area that must be 

taken into account even if the carrier is 

the sole provider for some but not all of 

the locations in the area? 

10. Currently, the Commission models 

the forward-looking operating costs of 

an efficient network using a range of 

data sources organized and aligned with 

relevant cost drivers, i.e., demand and 

associated capital investments. The 

model estimates the annualized total 

cost (including operating costs) of 

deploying a network using today’s 

technology to all locations within a 

specified geographic area less an 

assumed per-location expected revenue. 

When adopting this approach, the 

Commission specifically rejected a 

proposed model that would limit 

support to brownfield development 

because, while a brownfield model 

accounts for the cost of initial upgrades 

to the extent that the existing network 

is not up to standard, a brownfield 

model does not account for replacement 

capital after an initial capital investment 

is made. Should the Commission use 

the same approach here, a modified 

version of this approach, or a new 

approach? 

11. Inputs. What inputs should the 

Commission use to quantify certain 

operating and capital costs, and what 

should those costs be, e.g., costs 

associated with making networks 

scalable to consumer demands and 

needs? In developing the CAM, the 

Commission took steps to account for a 

range of operating costs by considering, 

among other things, network operations 

expenses (both plant specific and plant 

non-specific, factoring company size 

and by density), general and 

administrative costs (including property 

tax indices by state), selling and 

marketing costs, and bad debt. Can this 

approach be readily adapted to estimate 

the support necessary to sustain 

networks that have been full-service? 

Are there other factors that should be 

considered when estimating operating 

costs? Should the Commission adjust 

the model on a routine basis to account 

for changes to costs and if so, how often 

should this be done? 

12. The CAM uses Annual Charge 

Factors (ACFs) to capture the cost of 

capital investments that are used over 

time, accounting for depreciation, 

income taxes, and cost of money. The 

cost of capital is the cost a firm will 

incur in raising funds in a competitive 

capital market based on a firm’s overall 

systematic risk, and is generally 

estimated as a weighted average of the 

cost of equity and the cost of debt. In 

order to adopt final values for ACFs, the 

Commission must make certain 

assumptions regarding asset 

depreciation, income taxes, and the cost 

of money. For example, CAM 

determines the terminal value of the 

network based on ‘‘book value’’ 

calculated as the difference between 

investment and economic depreciation, 

which takes into account the economic 

life of the equipment and infrastructure. 

To determine a CAM input to capture 

the cost of money, the Commission used 

an analytical approach to establish a 

‘‘zone of reasonableness,’’ and selected 

an input at the midpoint of that range. 

What assumptions about each input are 

relevant here? 

13. How should a model supporting 

full-service networks reflect the carrier’s 

composition of capital? Prior models 

have not recognized carrier-specific 

mixes of debt and equity financing, 

instead reflecting a uniform cost of 

capital for all carriers subject to a 

particular model. If the Commission 

were to adopt a uniform cost of capital, 

how would it identify that cost and how 

often should it be reevaluated? Should 

that evaluation differ, as it does now, 

between carriers operating in price-cap 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
57386 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

areas receiving support through the 

CAM and rate-of-return carriers 

receiving support through the 

Alternative Connect America Cost 

Model? How should the Commission 

evaluate the impact of other sources of 

capital (such as Federal and state 

grants)? In determining the cost of 

capital, does it matter whether different 

carriers have different debt-equity 

ratios? If a carrier has chosen a 

relatively expensive form of financing, 

should the Commission provide support 

that validates that choice? Would this 

approach be consistent with treating 

carriers equally? Are there 

circumstances in which using a uniform 

cost of capital would create problems? 

Are such circumstances common? 

Could the waiver process resolve such 

instances? 

14. Should capital inputs differ for 

carriers operating in areas outside the 

contiguous United States, and if so, 

how? For the CAM, the Commission 

incorporated specific factors to generate 

unique inputs for carriers operating in 

non-contiguous states and territories 

(such as the United States Virgin 

Islands, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and other 

areas), including those relating to the 

plant mix, undersea and submarine 

cable, terrain methodology, statespecific inputs, and company size. 

Should these same factors be taken into 

consideration when developing a model 

for sustaining full-service networks? 

Should other factors be taken into 

consideration? 

15. Data sources. What objective, upto-date, and available data sources can 

the Commission use in the development 

of this cost model? Alternatively, or in 

addition to such sources, should the 

Commission require the submission of 

accounting and financial information to 

model costs, revenues, past one-off 

grants, and similar? Should the 

Commission require submission of 

information on specific and approved 

network plans, to the extent there are 

any, and associated funding? What other 

kinds of information should the 

Commission collect to ensure realistic 

cost model and revenue estimates? And 

how often should this information be 

collected? For example, should it be 

collected periodically (annually or 

biennially, etc.) or only as current 

support arrangements come to their end, 

or some other way? What are the 

benefits and costs of different 

information collection timing choices? 

What would be the benefits of collecting 

and consolidating such information to 

supplement or replace other general 

industry research? What would be the 

administrative costs and resources 

required for completing this process? 

How could the Commission make use of 

this information while avoiding the 

pitfalls of rate-of-return regulation? 

16. Revenues. How would the 

Commission model the present value of 

expected revenues of an efficient fullservice network? How should the 

Commission account for the fact that 

providers receiving current support 

must set prices to mass market 

customers that are reasonably 

comparable to urban rates? For the CAM 

model, the Commission adopted a 

funding benchmark that takes into 

account both assumed expected 

revenues per subscriber and an assumed 

subscription rate, and the model 

calculates support for areas where such 

assumed revenues do not cover costs up 

to an extremely high cost threshold 

consistent with the budget. For fullservice networks, should the 

Commission similarly take into 

consideration the actual take rate 

(subscribership) of these networks, 

particularly in and to areas where 

subscribership is influenced by regional 

factors such as limited income, mobile 

populations, and other factors? How 

would the Commission measure and 

account for variable investments, and 

effectiveness, in marketing? Should 

expected take rates differ when 

measuring revenue and costs? 

17. How should the Commission 

account for revenue received from other 

Federal and state grants that provide 

support on a one-time basis for 

deployment or provide continuing 

support to sustain operations? Where 

urban broadband providers are 

unsubsidized and not subject to meeting 

a rate benchmarks, urban rates can 

adjust upwards when costs rise. Since 

rural rates can be set to the urban rate 

benchmark, could the Commission 

assume any future rural cost increases 

could be recovered by accompanying 

rural price increases? Is there a reason 

to think that rural costs could rise at 

rates materially above the rate of 

increase in urban costs? If so, would the 

requirement to provide services that are 

reasonably comparable to urban services 

in quality and price not allow USF 

supported providers to fully recover 

their costs? 

18. Updates. How often should the 

Commission consider updates to an 

ongoing support model? Several 

commenters in the Future of USF 

proceeding asserted that funding should 

be made available for network 

improvements responsive to changes in 

consumer demands. Such changes could 

require adjustments to the model and/or 

model inputs. How would the 

Commission determine when such 

changes should or must be made? Could 

this be achieved, consistent with the 

Commission’s past practice, by setting 

service standards and subsidy amounts 

for a set period, in order to grant 

providers a degree of certainty while 

allowing periodic adjustment? What 

would an appropriate support term be to 

offer certainty to providers while 

limiting inefficient payments? Should a 

support term consider the pace of 

technological development, changing 

geographic and demographic 

conditions, or other factors? Should 

updates to the model similarly consider 

such changing circumstances? 

19. Alternatives to a model. The 

Commission next asks about other 

alternatives to a model. There may be 

certain disadvantages to the modelbased approach. For example and based 

on previous experience, it may take 

some time, several years, to develop and 

update the model. In addition, a model 

makes certain assumptions of 

uniformity among potential support 

recipients, including uniform 

assumptions about cost, particularly 

given terrain and population 

characteristics, and uniform penetration 

and expected revenues. The CAM, as 

currently designed does not take into 

consideration other sources of support, 

such as those from the states or Federal 

agencies. In light of these complications, 

are there any alternatives to a model 

that the Commission should consider? 

20. Given that the adaption of existing 

models is likely to require significant 

time and investment, should the 

Commission prioritize other 

approaches? Should the Commission 

adopt an interim plan for providing 

support while the cost model is 

developed? For example, as suggested in 

one publication, the Commission could 

measure the need for universal service 

support by requiring applicants for 

support to answer certain standard 

financially-oriented questions, the 

answers to which would then be fed 

into a standard financial model. This 

model would take into account potential 

sources of finance (including the cost of 

equity and debt and other possible 

sources of support), the cost of the 

initial build-out (or initial network 

capex), the relative amounts of fixed 

and success-based capex, the 

penetration rate and changes in the 

penetration rate over time, and 

projected revenues. One advantage of 

this approach is that it can permit the 

Commission to take into account the 

individual characteristics of the 

applicants for support. The Commission 

seeks comment on this approach. 

21. Since the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order, the Commission 

has sought to use competitive processes 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 57387 

to determine support levels. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should use such competitive 

mechanisms going forward to assign 

universal service support obligations 

and determine support levels, either in 

the context of determining ongoing 

operating support or more generally to 

achieve its universal service goals. 

Would it be possible to competitively 

determine support levels following the 

BEAD Program, and are there areas 

where competitive mechanisms could 

not be used? What obligations should 

apply to winners of support? One 

approach for using a competitive 

mechanism would be to change the 

focus of the high-cost program from the 

deployment of networks towards the 

long-standing universal service goals of 

universal affordability and adoption. 

The most recent internet Access 

Services Report shows that broadband 

adoption rates in the wealthiest and 

most dense areas of the country are well 

above 90 percent, but below 40 percent 

in some of the least dense and poorest 

areas of the country. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether and how the 

USF high-cost program could be 

reoriented towards closing these 

substantial digital equity and 

affordability gaps. Should the 

Commission consider reorienting its 

high-cost programs towards closing the 

adoption and affordability gaps in highcost areas? 

22. The Commission also asks about 

force majeure events and whether and 

how a high-cost program focused on 

providing ongoing operating support 

should account for these events. Are 

there events that providers cannot 

reasonably anticipate, or insure against, 

that will materially affect the need for 

universal service support going 

forward? Are these location-specific 

events, or is it possible to accommodate 

support needed in responses to these 

events equally across the United States 

and territories? If the USF were to cover 

certain unforeseeable costs that a carrier 

could not reasonably anticipate, such as 

generally rare weather-related events 

(e.g., hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, 

tornados, floods), should the 

Commission establish and administer a 

separate funding mechanism? Or would 

it be simpler to incorporate such costs 

in the broader universal service 

program? The Commission also seeks 

information about the role private, 

commercial or government insurance 

can play in helping to offset the 

financial harm caused by these events. 

23. Area eligibility. The Commission 

next seeks comment on areas and 

locations eligible to receive support. 

When would a full service network be 

deemed or become economically viable 

without continuing support, and thus 

become ineligible for support? 

Consistent with past Commission 

policy, it expects to preclude support to 

any overbuilt locations, i.e., locations 

where an unsubsidized network 

provider offers broadband services 

comparable to those in urban areas at 

comparable prices and seeks comment 

on maintaining this policy going 

forward. What parameters should the 

Commission place around such a 

restriction? Should the Commission also 

preclude support to locations or areas 

where future overbuild is likely to 

occur? How would the Commission 

identify these areas? How would the 

Commission ensure the overbuild rates 

would remain comparable to urban rates 

if the subsidized provider were to exit 

the market? If the Commission does not 

provide support in areas with an 

unsubsidized competitor, how would it 

ensure the overbuild rates would remain 

comparable to urban rates if the 

subsidized provider were to exit the 

market? 

24. The Commission has an obligation 

to limit support to carriers to no more 

than necessary and to encourage carriers 

to be prudent and efficient in their 

expenditures, including operating as 

well as capital expenses. First and 

foremost, the Commission must ensure 

that its support mechanisms remain 

responsive to consumer needs by 

balancing the need for affordable 

broadband service against the burden on 

contributors to the USF. How should the 

Commission determine a budget for 

ongoing support to sustain operations of 

a full-service network operating in highcost areas while protecting the interests 

of ratepayers? Can the Commission use 

a cost model to set a budget or should 

it use some other means, and if so, what 

should those means be? 

25. Further, to ensure that support 

does not continue for a longer time 

period than carriers will need such 

support, the Commission expects that a 

fixed term for support is necessary to 

permit the Commission to revisit 

carriers’ support eligibility. A set 

support term has the advantage of 

providing firms with good incentives to 

reduce costs from the start and adds 

predictability to revenue estimates. 

Incentives for cost reduction arise 

because, for the duration of the 

promised payments, any cost reductions 

directly increase the provider’s profit. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

position. 

26. How long should the support term 

be and what data or assumptions should 

the Commission use to evaluate term 

length? Should it be based on 

predictions regarding how quickly 

consumer demand will change or on 

routine evaluations of factors that define 

high-cost areas, such as population 

density? How should the Commission 

coordinate the support term and the 

schedule for updating the model? 

Should support terms differ based on 

the probability of unsubsidized 

competition developing? Should there 

be automatic triggers for cutting off 

funding, perhaps with a glide path, if, 

for example, population reaches a 

certain density? Should the Commission 

reserve the right to revisit ongoing 

commitments in the light of radical 

technological change? How should the 

Commission account for the pace of 

technological development and how 

that may end up affecting service 

demand/expectations, while also 

balancing the effect that would have 

potentially on support amounts and 

contributions? 

27. The Commission’s current highcost programs include specific, defined 

service obligations for deployment and 

specific reporting requirements. In 

addition, the Commission requires 

recipients of high-cost support to 

participate in performance testing to 

monitor compliance with speed and 

latency requirements, which includes 

conducting, at a minimum, one 

download test and one upload test per 

testing hour at each subscriber test 

location over a week time frame each 

quarter and to provide that information 

to the Commission. Performance testing 

has protected ratepayers’ investment 

and ensured that carriers receiving 

universal service high-cost support 

deploy networks that meet the 

performance standards they promised to 

deliver. To ensure accountability in the 

use of support to sustain operation of 

full-service networks, should the 

Commission consider adopting similar 

rules for a future funding mechanism or 

should it require annual reporting 

regarding the state of facilities, business 

operations, and other factors? Should 

the Commission require annual or 

quarterly performance testing and if so, 

what would be the parameters of such 

testing? If performance testing shows 

that a provider has failed to meet the 

requirements imposed for continuing 

support receipt, should the support be 

placed on hold until the problems are 

remediated? What kind of time limit 

should the Commission impose to 

remediate? Should the Commission 

implement any mechanisms similar to 

those used for other high-cost programs, 

such as receipt of a letter of credit, that 

would enable recovery of disbursed 

support in the event of default? Should 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
57388 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

the Commission limit these 

requirements to service providers that 

are currently receiving support? 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

28. The document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

29. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in sections 

4(i), 214, 218–220, 254, 303(r), and 403 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 214, 218– 

220, 254, 303(r), and 403, and § 1.1 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1, this 

Notice of Inquiry is adopted. The Notice 

of Inquiry will be effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register, 

with comment dates indicated therein. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18084 Filed 8–22–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Nine Species Not 

Warranted for Listing as Endangered 

or Threatened Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of findings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 

findings that nine species are not 

warranted for listing as endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After a thorough review 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that it 

is not warranted at this time to list the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis 

lupus ligoni), Chihuahua catfish 

(Ictalurus sp. 1), Cooper’s cave 

amphipod (Stygobromus cooperi), 

Georgia blind salamander (Eurycea 

wallacei), minute cave amphipod 

(Stygobromus parvus), Morrison’s cave 

amphipod (Stygobromus morrisoni), 

narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle 

(Hygrotus diversipes), pristine crayfish 

(Cambarus pristinus), and Tennessee 

heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia). 

However, we ask the public to submit to 

us at any time any new information 

relevant to the status of any of the 

species mentioned above or their 

habitats. 

DATES: The findings in this document 

were made on August 23, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the 

bases for these findings are available on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under the 

following docket numbers: 

Species Docket No. 

Alexander Archipelago wolf ................................................................................................................................... FWS–R7–ES–2023–0109 

Chihuahua catfish .................................................................................................................................................. FWS–R2–ES–2023–0110 

Cooper’s cave amphipod ....................................................................................................................................... FWS–R5–ES–2023–0120 

Georgia blind salamander ..................................................................................................................................... FWS–R4–ES–2023–0117 

Minute cave amphipod .......................................................................................................................................... FWS–R5–ES–2023–0121 

Morrison’s cave amphipod ..................................................................................................................................... FWS–R5–ES–2023–0122 

Narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle ........................................................................................................................ FWS–R6–ES–2023–0111 

Pristine crayfish ..................................................................................................................................................... FWS–R4–ES–2023–0115 

Tennessee heelsplitter ........................................................................................................................................... FWS–R4–ES–2023–0116 

Those descriptions are also available 

by contacting the appropriate person as 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any 

new information, materials, comments, 

or questions concerning this finding to 

the appropriate person, as specified 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Species Contact information 

Alexander Archipelago wolf ...................................................... Stewart Cogswell, Field Supervisor, Anchorage Field Office, Stewart_Cogswell@

fws.gov, 907–271–2888. 

Chihuahua catfish ..................................................................... Michael Warriner, Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, Michael_warriner@fws.gov, 512–490–0057. 

Cooper’s cave amphipod, minute cave amphipod, Morrison’s 

cave amphipod.

Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor, West Virginia Field Office, jennifer_l_norris@

fws.gov, 304–704–0655. 

Georgia blind salamander ........................................................ Peter Maholland, Field Supervisor, Georgia Ecological Services Field Office, 

peter_maholland@fws.gov, 706–208–7512. 

Narrow-foot hygrotus diving beetle .......................................... Tyler Abbott, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, tyler_abbott@fws.gov, 

307–757–3707. 

Pristine crayfish ........................................................................ Dan Elbert, Field Supervisor, Tennessee Field Office, daniel_elbert@fws.gov, 

571–461–8964. 

Tennessee heelsplitter ............................................................. Janet Mizzi, Field Supervisor, Asheville Ecological Services Field Office, janet_

mizzi@fws.gov, 828–258–3939x42223. 

Individuals in the United States who 

are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or 

have a speech disability may dial 711 

(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1